SC dismisses appeal of Mayadevi against divorce from husband

New Delhi, Feb 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court has come to the rescue of a husband who lost three children due to the cruelty of his wife, when the Apex Court dismissed her appeal against the divorce granted to the husband by the Trial and the High Courts.

The petitioner, Mayadevi of Rajasthan lost the final round of hearing on February 21, when the bench comprising Justices Arijeet Pasayat and Dalveer Bhandari upheld the order of the Trial Court as well as the Rajasthan High Court.

Mayadevi was married to Jagdish Prashad on April 17, 1993 and four children were born from the wedlock.

According to the allegation of the husband on April 5 2002, she left her matrimonial home along with three children namely Neha, Annu and Khemraj. Later, dead bodies of the children were recovered from a well and the wife was also taken out of the same well.

Following this, she was convicted for the murder of her three children and her appeal against the conviction and sentence, is pending in the Rajasthan High Court.

Surprisingly, she was pregnant at the time of the offence and delivered another child when she was on bail. She had also filed a false case against her husband alleging harassment for dowry.

According to Jagdish, Mayadevi used to keep the children tied with rope and she also attempted to throw them down from the rooftop. He said she used to physically torture them and also used to threaten that she would destroy the entire family of Jagdish leaving no successor.

The husband, fed up with the cruel nature and behaviour of his wife, filled a divorce, which was allowed by the Trial Court holding that the wife had in fact treated the husband cruelly.

Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court also dismissed her appeal.

Jagdish also alleged that she used to extort money from him for her family members by blackmailing him and on October 23, 1999 she took Rs 1,05,000 and gave him receipt.

The Apex Court, while dismissing the appeal of Mayadevi observed, ''The instances of cruelty highlighted by the Trial Court and also by the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. It is not a fact as submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the conviction in the criminal case was the foundation for the decree. On the contrary the Trial Court clearly mentioned that the aspect was not taken note of as the appeal was pending. In view of what has been stated above, the inevitable result is dismissal of the appeal which we direct.'' The court concluded that in case of divorce on the ground of cruelty the concept of a proof beyond the shadow of doubt which is applied to criminal trials was certainly not applicable to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife.

UNI